For a guy who is so fond of labeling, lumping together and dismissing people as SJWs, Feminists etc., Thunderfoot sure does an awfully lot of whining, criticizing and moralizing about people who owe him nothing. I very much enjoy listening to him.I agree with him often and admire his intelligence, but does he never have anything helpful to say? Does he never wonder why it is that he makes so VERY many enemies? The argument that he makes enemies because he tells the unvarnished truth will sound extremely "Hovind-esque". I really do love this guy. Just glad I don't have to see him every day. Does he have fun? Laugh? Play?

Well maybe TF thought that PZM had been misrepresenting him in some way and felt the need to tell his side of the story. That seems fair to me. TF strikes me as am all or nothing guy who will follow an argument through all its macanations through to the very end, then go back and wring it out one final time to make sure all angles have been covered. Maybe that's what makes him a good scientist because he will leave no stone unturned in his bid for the full picture.

+PZ Myers What a silly muppet you are. Freethoughtblogs? Like someone calling themselves liberal humanists who believe gay marriage should be a criminal offense. Like a democracy with a despotic king. Like the freedom to vote in the USSR, where there's one party on the list. Like an environmentalist driving a hummer.
You're a joke... like A+ is.

Free Thought Blogs, where you are free to agree with the admins!
Also, as a libertarian, I am disgusted that some in our ranks would try to silence you. That cuts so against the grain of actual libertarianism, that I almost question the allegation, but you seem like an honest guy so giving you the benefit of the doubt, I would say that those who tried to silence you under the banner of liberty do not understand libertarianism at all and are either republicans who smoke pot or democrats who are anti-war. We have seen a lot of that kind, who simply view us as a 3rd party and a way to express their dissatisfaction with the party they are normally aligned with. It is nice to see the movement grow, but many of these people claim the libertarian title, yet do not understand that a big part of liberty is allowing those who disagree with you to have a voice, and that trying to control your fellow man (outside of preventing violence) is not only a bad idea, but is contrary to the entire concept of liberty.
So I apologize that some one from my end of the political spectrum attempted to silence you, and know that even though I disagree with your views on libertarianism, I would fight for your right to make those views heard. In fact, I especially like hearing people who disagree with me, because that causes me to continually evaluate what I do believe to see if it stands up to scrutiny. Beliefs that cannot be challenged are worthless and people like you not only entertain me, but keep me sharp.
Keep up the good work and thank you for your contributions to the public discourse.

I like a lot of your videos & dislike a lot of others, this falling into the latter. A rape threat, particularly in person should not be diminished, not matter who it is said to. It wasn't even relevant to the subject matter here.

I agree. Although I don't agree with many feminists, criticizing people because they speak out against people who threaten others in a disgusting manner is somewhat repugnant. I originally subscribed because I agreed with his stance on religion and I enjoyed the scientific debunking he did, but all of this feminism bashing is to my distaste. Sure, many feminists are whiny and pathetic, but some actually do stand for a very real cause, and at one point he actually went out and said that sexual dimorphism is the reason that women don't hold as many high-paying jobs as men, and I disagree. I'm beginning to question his content.

Don't put How the World Works in with other censorious bastards. He never tried to disable comments or ban your videos. He linked to them...that's how I followed the argument. I agree though...PZ is weak.

PZ, methinks is a repressed rapist. It's all about projection, you think? His famed Skepticon wager with a female stranger still makes my skin crawl. I wasn't a feminist until that moment; that feminists would embrace him mystifies and causes my immediate resignation therefrom.

Indeed. First, your writing shows you to be intelligent, thoughtful, and quite articulate, in fact, the very souls A+ is attempting to service. Second, that they have spent their time discouraging dialogue with you, rather than blasting the wing nuts that abound, is as counterproductive as it is counterintuitive. In short, it's the very recipe for certain doom.

+Ruiqi Mao
Yeah. FTB was circling the drain, and I think a big part of the reason they disabled YT comments and put a blog on FTB was to use their popularity to save PZ's bacon. But I think it's a temporary solution, and A+ will take AE down with it.
Notice that people have nearly stopped posting AE clips on YT? In the past, I'd see new ones all the time.

Rebecca Watson, do you seriously think people want to rape you? Can you not understand what is happening? You put up a video that states any liberal intellectual man who does not want to discuss feminism is worse than a rape threat, they are showing you how wrong you are! No one means it seriously, but they are taking your words (that you were very adamant about) and using them against you. So I ask again, is the supposed "hundreds" (maybe 1 or 2) of rape threats really worse than liberal intellectual men not wanting to listen to your intolerable dribble.

Agreed...
There's a word that describes feminists like her.... Neurotic.
I mean that in the most medically terminology possible. I'm all for the cause, but some truly need some therapy. They do more damage then good.
Scepticon 7 seemed way to full of the wrong... Lets say agenda, for my liking as well. Some do more damage then good when they don't know when to shut up.

PZ is a scum bag. His followers are morons. They are all but religious, and just like the religious they have a persecution complex, they shun those who don't toe the line, they claim the moral high ground, they appeal to emotion instead of logic, and use each other to validate their otherwise obviously moronic bullshit. They are also hypocrites who use real sexism against men and women who do not conform as a tool against perceived sexism.
As we can see by a comment below, if you disagree with their bullshit and apply critical thinking to feminism, you are equated to a misogynist radical Muslim. Such quality comments are common amongst the plusers. We must either accept that they really are this stupid, which is probable, or that they are purposely trolling for the sake of being divisive.

you are mad because you were banned from freethoughtblog because you posted about how other users you disagree with have been given too much attention and too much freedom to post content. I know you think it's ironic because YOU were banned, but if you would just pull your head out of your own ass, the ultimate irony might not pass you by completely

perhaps i'm just incredibly stupid, but i dont get the supposed irony either.
he dissented from the hive mind and posted about it.
got banned for dissenting.
the only irony i get is that of being banned from a place called "free thought blogs" for thinking freely instead of joining the hive mind.
could you kindly explain what it is i missed?

We hear less and less of "free"thoughtblogs these days and even less of PZ Myers. Extraordinary how that what was predicted some time ago. I guess we can lengthen the old apothegm "the web is a place where religions come to die" to "the web is a place where religions and atheistpluses come to die". Both Myers and Carrier have brought calumny upon their own heads. The "elevatorgate" woman doesn't count because she never had a reputation to lose

PZ Myers looks like a cross between the typical ageing American white east Asian child sex tourist that jets off solo on "business" at least twice per-annum and Doctor Harold Shipman. So yes A paedophile and successful serial killer, What a top bloke. Still I never judge a book by its cover ;)

When I first heard about this individual, I thought, ‘great! a scientist and an outspoken New Atheist, maybe I should read him, he sounds interesting’. I was already someone who enjoyed reading and watching people like Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins, (Carl Sagan was my inspiration in my teens) so I wanted to check out this PZ Myers because he sounded like he carried this familiar and likeable intellectual gene (a scientific attitude, a secular approach and a healthy skepticism and irreverence). Probably because I'm introverted and shy, I didn't immediately join as a commenter on his blog and after witnessing what went on in there I never did (and in retrospect I count my lucky stars for that) but instead I simply read his articles and posts. I guess I was what's called a 'lurker'. So I lurked. But soon enough I began to notice some disquieting patterns with this man.
For one, he exhibits all the character traits of a paranoid absolutist and egomaniac. He has a tendency to see enemies in many places, even unlikely places. He would define his moral, social and political persuasions as ‘rational and indisputably right’ and those opposed, or even merely different, as ‘irrational, incoherent, despicable, evil’ and worth censorship or violent contempt or even worse. Also, when he’s wrong… but he’s never wrong of course. He’s somehow managed to become both all-good and infallible like that invisible Entity whose existence he supposedly questions. He accuses his enemies of ‘doubling down’ when he himself would triple-and-quadruple down on the non-existent occasion where he could possibly be less than 100% right.
Then he would brand the individuals he doesn’t like as ‘black sheep’ and cull them from the herd by not only banning them but embalming them in some virtual dungeon where he would forever flaunt their ‘sins’ along with his final dismissive sentence and summary execution like some kind of grotesque trophies (sexist and racist troll, tone troll, slimy something, loser, etc). The ‘rationale’ he would usually offer is that the transgressor had committed some mortal sin in the PZ Myers Third-Wave Testament, be it “sexism”, “racism”, “ignorance”, “tone trolling”, “white privilege” or what not. Sometimes the heretic is branded accurately (though always excessively) but many times his accusations were merely a pretext to remove someone who didn’t quite satisfy all of the prerequisites on his ideological checklist. Many times it was even more arbitrary than that; for example, someone who displeased him in some subtle and innocuous manner. Whatever the case may be, that virtual life form is then quickly snuffed out on His blog.
Thus PZ would segregate the world at large into those who think like him and those who don’t- usually the mark of the totalitarian mindset.
But perhaps the worst trait is the manner of his baiting and training of his own acolytes. These acolytes would curiously pride themselves on residing in something akin to a ‘shark tank’ and themselves having ‘shark-like teeth’ which they would sink into those unsuspecting swimmers who happen not to be ideologically pure enough or up to par in some unforgivable way. That is the attitude in there but one can hardly blame childlike minds for childlike attitudes; the real culprit is the manipulator behind the curtains. This passive-aggressive manchild who is supposed to be a middle-aged scientist and scholar has the emotional maturity of a pubescent and the vicious nature of street thug. It’s he who would consistently throw pieces of meat into his tank while saying, and I paraphrase of course, “see, see what scum this person is (it could be a religious person or a fellow atheist, or a Sam Harris on profiling or whatever target had incensed PZ that day or week and earned his ire).” And simultaneously he would say along the lines, “yes my creatures, pride yourself on your viciously critical little minds and righteous natures, have at them, tear at those sinners out there- show no mercy!”. And his acolytes, ‘sharks’, would swim all very excited at being positively reinforced by their master while hungrily waiting for the next feeding frenzy and its next victim, sorry I meant, ‘transgressor’.
The Master’s philosophy of course isn’t merely atheism, it is atheism plus. In fact the atheism has become rather an afterthought on that blog it seems. So his targets of opportunity aren’t always ‘religious nuts’. It could be anyone who doesn’t fit the precise measurements of a PZ-ideologically pure Aryan, I mean individual, in his social and political dogma.
‘Plus’ of course is used as the mathematically symbolic addition for the umbrella concept of ‘social justice’. Under the guise of being a crusader for ‘social justice’ –and mind you, not any generic social justice but social justice with a specific and heavy dose of ‘sex positive feminism’- PZ can usually be found goose-stepping about in his digital microkingdom seeking to extirpate real and imagined ‘enemies’ of his state. Thus he’s managed to attract and brainwash a merry band of fools, masochists, sadists, closet absolutists, paranoid hysterics and other frothing-at-the-mouth escapees of the local mental asylums. Calling this invariably his ‘horde’ or ‘the commentariat’, he has a few ‘self-selected’ Troika-wannabee bullies who are most trigger-happy to denounce any perceived heretic or enemy of the PZ-state under a quick enfilading volley of curses, insults, condescension and shaming tactics. This is called ‘the dogpile’ or the ‘feeding frenzy’ and while it marshals the small and short muskets of all of the acolytes it is usually captained by a few more savvy Pharyngula lifers and self-anointed Inquisitors who would lead the charge as audaciously and as recklessly as can be. They would bury the sinner under an avalanche of logic jargon and redundancy and by-fiat assertions while presupposing all of their own righteousness and the ‘validity’ of their own ‘ironclad’ positions. If the victim/target is slightly more erudite or competent in philosophy and resists the initial charge and somehow dares and manages to defend herself from this cowardly attack on all sides, the Grand Inquisitor conveniently lurks in the sidelines ready to deliver the final incapacitating blow from his ‘ban hammer’ which he wields with all the zeal of a Teutonic knight.
And this of course is justice par course for them, or at least the ‘social’ kind. And gosh darn it, if it's good enough for them, it should be good enough for everyone else!

The sceptical community are some of the biggest supporters of censorship there are. For example, Dawkins has raged against the X-Files. You campaigned to have Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk removed from the internet because he challenged the basis of your belief system. One of your leaders suggested his book should be burned for heresy. You are at it all the time. You celebrated the jailing of Erich von Daniken. You banned Halton Arp from looking through your telescopes. Once your own house is in order you may have a grievance, but until then what goes around comes around.

If anyone is unfamiliar with PZ and his attendant horde of socially prepubescent acolytes, just read +fulltimesnob below, he's absolutely nailed it! I would go one further and suppose that PZ is likely a closet narcissist who feeds of the batting eyelids and soft cooing calls of his fawning claque of ugly ducklings....all the time hiding behind an academic raincoat stuffed brim full with cheap boiled sweets and bad intentions.
He likely puts up with the odd mangina as his superiority complex won't allow him to fear they might have a better chance at picking off a straggler than he. And Tf00t, did you really, actually believe that FTB was about 'free thought' and 'academic freedom'? You're a clever guy and I enjoy your postings but come on mate, it took me 3 to 4 minutes of reading to realize they were a bunch of troll-hunting professional victims.

Why does it seem that this new form of radical feminism is unable to exist and stand on it's own merit? Why are these folks so preoccupied with hijacking a completely unrelated movement such as atheism like some form of blight or parasite in a shameless and laughable attempt to claim it as their own?
To me it seems like starting an organization called "Literacy+": a movement that believes that all children should be taught to read but that additionally believes that all whites are either slave owners or potential slave owners.

+RainbowEagle
He never 'told women what to wear', you deceptive little worm. He offered some bloody obvious and actually useful advice - if you reduce your risk of being targeted or being vulnerable, you are much less likely to be victimized by a criminal. In other words, lock your doors and you're less likely to be burgled. Don't walk through the ghetto in your $1,000 suit and you're less likely to be mugged. Don't have unprotected sex and you're much less likely to get a disease. Don't dress slutty and walk through the streets drunk at night and you're less likely to be raped (though even if you do, you're still statistically much less likely to be assaulted than a man, and in fact most likely will get a free cab paid for by some concerned stranger - turns out men aren't so vile and evil after all).
You can never eliminate the risks, but risk reduction is the most effective way of preventing crime, and the choice remains yours - put yourself at an elevated risk, or reduce the risk and make yourself less likely to be victimized. If it's sexist to advise women not to dress in revealing clothes and then get drunk at a secluded place with a load of strangers, then it must also be sexist to advise a rich businessman to dress plain in a rough neighborhood. I wonder, if your neighbor got burgled, and he left his doors unlocked, would you not chastise him for being so foolish? I think you would. Then he will learn from the experience. You are actively preventing women from learning and avoiding repetitions of sexual assault.
And spare me that 'but it's the rapist's fault, men shouldn't rape!' bollocks. No shit, everyone knows that. Including rapists! You would have to be a total fucking moron to think crime is just going to suddenly end because some women parade naked through the streets. People commit crimes because they don't care about you, they are sociopaths, they do what they like. Something like 95% of rapes are committed by repeat offenders, something like 0.1% of the male population (female rapists aren't even counted in the stats thanks to feminism despite studies showing they are as prevalent as male predators).
When you say society needs to change or whatever, you are not helping women avoid being raped (nor men, but fuck them I guess, even though in the US they are now the majority of rape victims). Everyone knows rape is bad, it is one of the most reviled crimes, it couldn't possibly be more stigmatized than it currently is. Doesn't make a fucking difference because these people are fucked in the head. You might as well be demanding murder end (but I guess since more than 80% of murder victims are men that's lower on the priority list). It's so delusional I have to wonder how sheltered you people are.
Your proposal would do NOTHING to help women. You just want a moral cause to be outraged about and feed off of. You have clearly not given this topic even a minute of serious rational pragmatic reality-based thought. TF's advice will actually protect women from this crime if they follow it. If not, fine, it's their choice. So how is he a bigot when he has concern for their safety? Are you just looking for reasons to be an asshole and attack him? Because he's clearly not being sexist, he's trying to offer a pragmatic solution. Criminalizing things doesn't end crime, brainwashing kids doesn't end crime, empowering people with practical advice that works to protect themselves does reduce crime.
Sorry, but the world is a dangerous place, always will be. If you don't take sensible precautions, you're just a fucking imbecile and bad things will inevitably happen to you as a result. Don't shoot the messenger.

THE COMMUNIST CHINESE BAN FREE SPEACH AND THOUGHT, SO DO THE RUSSIANS THE NORHT KOREANS THE CUBANS, ALL MIDDLE EAST COUNTRIES. OH YEAH NAZI GERMANY AS WELL AS MUSLIMS CHRISTIANS AND JEWS, IF YOU CANT DEBATE HONESTLY, AND BAN THOSE OF DIFFERENT VIEWS THAN YOUR OWN, THEN "YOU" LOSE THE DEBATE AND YOUR CREDIBILITY!

I think he's given carte blanche to the feminazis just so he can be their safe haven in atheist-academia and of course so he wouldn't be slandered by them as well. however, that's clearly no excuse for this sort of blatant dishonesty and absolute failure of character.

Thunderf00t got what all trolls get - banning. The video above is a prime example of his method of trolling.
Firstly he starts with a invective tirade against PZ Myers, while hypocritically criticizing PZ Myers for using invective language.
Secondly, he suggests there was an agreement, which he offers no record for, that gave him "100%" freedom to write whatever he wanted. Then uses that as his sole basis to claim lack of intergrity. Presumably, there is some truth in his statement about the nature of the agreement, but Thunderf00t portrays the agreement as carte blanche freedom to write anything at all, which is the only way he could legitimately disparage PZ Myers, in suggesting Myers broke the agreement. However, 100% free to write whatever he want obviously meant within the goals and terms of the FTB i.e. Thunderf00t wouldn't be able to proselytize for Islam on FTB, or unreasonably attack other members of the community or its social network, under the guise of "freedom" or "free thinking".
Thirdly, Thunderf00t admits that he wanted to "challenge the plurality" of the FTB, in terms of what he perceives as disproportionate attention to sexual harassment, rather than recognizing that the issue of sexual harrassment was a hot topic at the time. Thunderf00t entered FTB with the intention to stir up trouble.
Fourthly, Thunderf00t in this video focuses on what PZ Myers said in his email, without providing us with the content of his posts that Myers is referring too. Thunderf00t hides from us the content, and denies us the chance to think for ourselves and come to our own conclusions. Instead he dictates to us (like some religious Guru) what we should think about his unseen posts.
Fifthly, Thunderf00t uses much hyperbole in discussing the issue, such as misrepresenting the "we" in PZ Myers email, that obviously meant "we" as representative of interest of the organization, and not "we" a collection of individuals that make up the "lynch mob". Thunderf00t is clearly stretching the language of the email in order to make his facile attacks, and escalate tensions.
Sixth, Thunderf00t says "I don't want to make this personally, but [I'm going to make it personal anyway]". This is the biggest indication of an axe to grind, and one that he seems to have been grinding long before he joined FTB.
Without knowing what Thunderf00t wrote, I can only presume from his current tone, that he wrote something in much the same tone, hyperbole and exaggeration, which PZ Myers' video seems to confirm. So I'm not surprised he was banned.
Also, I don't disagree with Thunderf00t's assessment of Watson. I too believe she is a troll. But her being a troll doesn't mean Thunderf00t is not a troll too.

+Tyler Christensen
Accusing someone of "trolling" is a really cheapshot. You see this all the time: Somebody disagrees with somebody else, and thus that somebody else accuses the first person of "trolling".
Ironically, those people who throw those accusations often are themselves just trolling.

What a sad thing, for you to lash out in a blog that you make money off of, against people who hurt your feelings. I so want to believe you're better than this, but the more videos I see the more you prove me wrong. Step back from the brink, give up the kickstarter scam, come back into the light. My opinion for what it's worth.

Hey here's a big shocker: In addition to the fact that PZ's response does not specifically address any of the issues raised by thunderf00t, PZ's reply on youtube to this fiasco has comments and ratings disabled!
Hmmm... ratings and comments disabled. Who else does that?

I find this whole PZ Meyers and the Skepchick thing to be too weird for words. It's like Charlie's Angels, where you have a lot of young, intelligent, beautiful and capable women being completely dominated by a dirty and creepy old man with an intercom, all the while as it is being served up as something empowering to women.

If a person tries to live in the woods naturally these days in USA, he gets tracked down with satelite photography. True facts.
But in fact I am an autistic who has a hard time walking down the street without being questioned and confronted, thanks for your ignorant assumptions that everyone is a hypocrite like you, Yuppie house slave scum.

This has all come about because someone tried to hit on Ms Watson, And she turned him down, was he not good looking , so its harassment, I remember an experiment that came to that conclusion. Jesus wept

As a gay man, I know that there is something like what feminists call "the patriarchy", because I have been bumping into it most of my life. It isn't like a huge, Illuminati like conspiracy of the evil doers keeping us down. It is more like the sum of things like fathers telling sons "boys don't cry", or children seeing their mother constantly defer to men. It might even be better called "traditional gender roles". But intangible though it is, if you push against it people will push back. Hard.

From Wikipedia, "Religion is a collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the Universe."
I cannot see the word "God" in the whole description.
Could you please try to convince the "world" about your view first before convincing me? Thank you.

Atheism + is a trojan horse. Any cursory listen to Richard Carrier at any TAM meeting makes it painfully obvious that Atheism + means Atheism + Cultural Marxism. And cultural marxists are not exactly known for free thought and tolerating dissenting ideas.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” These were not his words, but rather those of Evelyn Beatrice Hall, written under the pseudonym S. G. Tallentyre in her 1906 biographical book The Friends of Voltaire. (Wikipedia...)

Damn, guys, why the infighting? None of us agree 100% on 100% of the topics. We already have enough dragons to collectively slay without getting sideways on issues - such as 'Feminism' - which (in my opinion) are WAY down the line of importance.

OK. Thanks. I was considering taking sides in this thing because I have some opinions about the topics involved, but based on that, I'm just going to stay out of it. I can't support doing crap to support a philosophical position.
As for posting URL's, you can if you insert some strategic spaces like this:
freethoughtblogs. com/blaghag/ 2012/08/ thunderf00ts-unethical-breach-of-our-privacy/

There is nothing much free or thoughtful at "free thought blogs" any more, and there is nothing much atheist in the "atheist" + forum. I feel sad for american atheism. I hope this crazy shit splinters into nothingness sooner rather than later.

yeah, I find that a very large percentage of those who call themselves "free thinkers" are rather dogmatic religion haters and anything but free thinkers. Thunderfoot's initial conversation with this blogger reminds me of a forum that initially told me it wouldn't ban me for being different because it was not "our forum" but a resource for public information, and that ended up banning me with no rules violations citing that they are a private forum and can do what they want. Typical Yuppie scum.

why not split the "debate" into two seperate areas: atheism on the left, sexism on the right, and keep them seperate, like the seperation of church and state?
perhaps i missed the main bulk of this conflict by avoiding drama like the plague, but that's good, right? it seems a shame to come looking to learn new things and finding all the dialog is derailed by a bunch of negative vibes where nobody is happy.

The answer depends on which aspect one is discussing. For example, the idea of "slut shaming", reduces the probabllity that a victim will report a rape making it easier for the rapist to get away with it and also may cause the victim to blame his or her self. (Note: Guys get raped too. My friend was raped by his brother. Pretty sad case.)

But it *is* trolling, most of those posts are from people who don't actually hold those kind of beliefs but are doing it purely to get a reaction out of the blogger herself or her fans. No one is condoning trolling or treating it as anything other than people being intentionally stupid, but we should call it what it is instead of misrepresenting it to lend more weight to arguments. To ignore the existence and extent of trolling on the internet would be silly.

Well, if we try to be objective here and look how the term is actually used, it seems to mean, that there exists cultural "norms" that make it easier for the rapist and harder for the rape victim. Now this claim is clearly true, in many cultures including our own. This doesn't mean, that our cultural has a desire to rape but rather that we inadvertantly help the rapist more than the rape victim in several tangible ways. On the bright side, I think, our society has addressed some of the issues.

Looks like atheism has a new enemy: Church of the New Feminism. I'm surprised other atheists didn't see this coming. Did you learn nothing from religion? Did you forget religion isn't the only dogma in the world with an Orwellian agenda? We shouldn't be so arrogant. Much of the faults we see in religion come from the faults of man. Organized atheism will suffer the same fate as organized religion. Hell is other people, as existentialist say, and God is dead, now the Goddess is after his throne.

Well, most criminals in jail are innocent. If you ask them. It's like saying "I*m not racist," and then go on to say something racist. It doesn't matter how hard Lee Doran denies being a libertarian, when everything out of his mouth is libertarian arguments. He may not be one, but in that case, he should stop making libertarian arguments constantly.

The definition of atheism is subject to argument. There are sub-categories of atheism. Your examples are only two of them.
Anti-theism is also a kind of atheism. Buddhism is a atheistic religion. Therefore, your answer to your question different from person to person. I called myself non-religion. (I used to call myself atheist, but after the FTBlog shit I don't want to be part of it. Too Dogmatic.)

People make death threats to the president over the internet all the time. Yet the president doesn't tell everyone about them and no one thinks that those threats undermine legitimate criticisms of him. The reason we don't is because everyone acknowledges that they're either tasteless jokes or someone amplifying their discontent behind the protection of a fake name and a keyboard.The fact that you think those comments are even worth responding to is what concerns me.

I've found that too, they seem to love to criticise men, but for some reason think they are excluded from their own generalisations. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for equality, but kissing someone's ass because they are female isn't equal treatment.

Congratulations, guys....our common enemies ('religionists/creationists/ID-ists') are LAUGHING THEIR COLLECTIVE ASSES OFF at all this ridiculous infighting. PZ Myers, I agree with Thunderfoot. Feminists, GET A FUCKING LIFE! BTW, Rebecca...,I don't think you're ugly, Baby!

In Wikipedia I can, in fact, put my own definition.
The word sacred come from "Holy":
Made or declared holy.
Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity(from wikipedia).
Protected by superstition or piety from irreligious actions.
See? religions base is the concept fo Holy and from this come sacred. :)